Addressing Some Problems

I am going to be honest, that I am pretty much angry that character examples aren't allowed in the Tomboy trope article despite the sub-tropes. If I were in TV Tropes' shoes, I would be allowing them to be added there anyway, and without that, the harder it'll become for what characters can be of this trope, as well as finding them and identifying them.

It doesn't even help either that Wikipedia is so wrongfully biased with some tomboys being on there and not allowing them, like Applejack, despite being commonly known to be one. TV Tropes is no better as it disallows the character examples on the Tomboy trope article. I really despise it when absurd exceptions are made in full-on wrongful bias. Another point I have to make, is that its also obviously hypocritical because, the In Touch With His Feminine Side trope, has been given a pass, but the Tomboy article doesn't. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid TV Tropes will have to loosen their standards and give the Tomboy article a pass as well. Disallowing the example folders on the Tomboy trope article, is not necessary.

The No On-Page Examples page claims that this is because Tomboy is "too common". But it has a LOT of sub-tropes that do allow examples, so you should try those instead.

There’s no “bias” going on here; No On-Page Examples just states that it’s too common to allow on-page examples. And the trope does still allow off-page examples.

Yeah what they said.

Although it is weird that In Touch with His Feminine Side has examples while Tomboy and Girly Girl do not but this is probably not the right place for this.

Simple. That trope is less common.