Let's formulate this a bit harsher: The intro sentence of [range.adaptors] says "This subclause defines range adaptors, which are utilities that transform a Range into a View with custom behaviors."
This is a lie; the subclause also contains iota_view, single_view, and empty_view, which perform no such transformation.
I would be ok with introducing a new subclause "Range generators" with these, but we should ask around.
@CaseyCarter, any opinion here?

This is a lie

It notably does not say "This subclause only defines range adaptors...". ;)

This has been bothering me but never quite managed to float to the top of the heap of things that needed to be fixed. I've been considering "Range factories" as a name for the things that fabricate views from whole cloth. There will eventually be a generate view a la the generate algorithm whose elements are the results of successive calls to a generator function - if we can get the semantics nailed down. When and if that day comes, "Range factories" will be a slightly clearer name than "Range generators."

iota, single, and empty are all the members of that set currently in the working draft.

Wouldn't "View factories" be more descriptive? While the range adaptors can take any range and transform it into a view thanks to view::all, the factories don't necessarily involve a range or refinement thereof as input.

Wouldn't "View factories" be more descriptive?

I agree that "View factories" would be more precise.