OPPOSE For reasons outlined below I would rather have this article named "Japanese saddle" than "Kura (saddle) if it comes to that.
"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Wikipedia:Consensus 
"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
A little history on this article. Before creating this article I first uploaded images and created categories that relate to this article on Wiki commons under this category "Category:Kura (Japanese saddle)" [Kura_(Japanese_saddle)], this was over one year ago. There has been no objections to the title on Wiki commons.  When I originally named this article I did read the article naming guidelines contained in Wikipedia:Article titles, here are a few quotes from the naming guidelines:(it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in brackets after the name.), I did this,  (The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.) It seems to me that only a "specialist" would understand what type of saddle a "kura" was, so when I named this article I looked at the list of saddle articles which are now in the category "Saddles by type" and here were saddle articles with titles such as English saddle, Western saddle and Australian Stock Saddle. Looking at these other saddle article titles I decided that Kura (Japanese saddle) would be the best title for this article as anyone who looked at the other articles on saddles could easily and instantly identify what type of saddle the article was about, if I had named the article Kura (saddle) it would not be a descriptive as the other saddle articles and someone with no knowledge of the subject would have to actually click on the title to see what a "Kura" was, with the word "Japanese" added a reader could instantly identify what type of saddle a "Kura" was, much like a reader who saw Australian Stock Saddle, Western saddle or English saddle would have a good idea what that article was about.
I have seen "precision" mentioned, I do not understand how having the title as Kura (Japanese saddle) compared to Kura (saddle) goes against any of the guidelines in the section labeled "Precision and disambiguation", WP:PRECISION, if I had named the article "Kura (the saddle of Japan) I would understand but how does Kura (Japanese saddle) go against any naming guidelines, how different is Kura (Japanese saddle) than Australian Stock Saddle? The only difference is some brackets. Here is a quote "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the title "Kura (saddle) not "precise" as it does not actually identify what type of saddle this is to the "general reader", I would rather have the article named "Japanese saddle" than "Kura (saddle) so that anyone will know instantly what type of saddle this article is about if it is necessary to change the articles title, at least the "general reader" would be able to know what the article is about without having to click on the title as they would with Kura (saddle).