File talk:UnionPay used in Chiba 20160212.jpg

Original Intent
When I first clicked on the link [then "red", at that time] labeled << "Talk" >>, at (from) a certain web page -- namely, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UnionPay_used_in_Chiba_20160212.jpg -- (and, as an aside, that web page did seem to EXIST! ... although maybe not with perfect spelling) -- it was because I had noticed that the title of the page -- and the URL as well -- contained the character string "Chiba", which seemed to me to be a mistake (perhaps a TYPO, or a spelling error).

My original intent was: simply to add a comment here, with a title such as << Incorrect spelling ("Chiba" vs. "China") >> ... to inquire about what the reason was why that spelling ("Chiba" vs. "China") had been used.

And I suspected that even if there might be some explanation, of how the mishap [perhaps] had occurred, ... still, there would not actually be any [good] *** reason ***, why that [incorrect!] spelling should be used. (right?)

That spelling -- ("Chiba" vs. "China") -- does not seem correct (neither in the title of a ".JPG" page, nor in a URL).

Any comments about that? Was it just a TYPO? or a spelling error? Or is there some third possibility, that I had not even counted upon?
 * (with apologies to Arlo Guthrie, ... as in, the quote about "there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon", in [the entry starting with "Now friends, there was", under] the "Alice's Restaurant Massacree" section of https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arlo_Guthrie)

"Liar" robot?
But *then*, when I clicked on that link, -- which seemed to point to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:UnionPay_used_in_Chiba_20160212.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1" -- I got a big surprise.

The [web] page that popped up then, said, (in part): "Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Note that the corresponding subject page File:UnionPay used in Chiba 20160212.jpg also does not exist."and ... to me, the second sentence (of that "block quote"), ... did not appear to be TRUE!

(and of course, once I submit this "edit" to the "Talk" page, then ... the first sentence there, will probably STOP being true.) (right?)

Am I missing something here? Does the page that -- "allegedly" -- "does not exist", REALLY not exist? Or was the robot [or "script" or whatever...] that "issued" that second sentence, somehow  [egregiously mistaken, or] a LIAR?

OR ... is there some other possibility, that did not even occur to me?

Any comments?
Thanks in advance, from --Mike Schwartz (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)