About https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html: The title "Built-in Functions", the table header "Built-in Functions" and the "functions" in the URL all suggest that what's on this page are functions. But many things on that page don't appear to be functions, like "range" or "dict". They appear to be callable types instead. For example "range":

    >>> type(range)
    <class 'type'>
    >>> import types
    >>> isinstance(range, types.FunctionType)
    False
    >>> isinstance(range, types.BuiltinFunctionType)
    False

Compare with "abs":

    >>> type(abs)
    <class 'builtin_function_or_method'>
    >>> isinstance(abs, types.FunctionType)
    False
    >>> isinstance(abs, types.BuiltinFunctionType)
    True

The text between title and table talks about "functions and types", but the title/tableheader/URL disagree.

Also, the table is wrong in saying that "abs()" etc are functions. Should say "abs" instead, i.e., remove the "()".

Many, like "abs", aren't even allowed to be called like that, as it results in "TypeError: abs() takes exactly one argument (0 given)".

The page also contains many references like "As repr(), return a string containing..." where the "()" should be removed.

While "functions" may not be accurate anymore, they are all callables.

Historically, those callables were functions. Later on some of the built-ins were replaced with type objects.

Regarding your last comment: It is common in Python to write "func()" for callables in Python. The "()" signal the callable property.

Agreed with Marc.  I don't think there is anything to do here.  The fact that python allows classes (which are callables) to be substituted for functions is a strength, but can lead to confusion (and people getting upset when classes end up with lowercase names :)

I think it would be more confusing than helpful to say "Built-in Callables".

I concur with the other respondents and am going to mark this as closed.

See also issue11975.