TL;DR: This is imo a borderline case, with a problem formulated in a confusing way, with an answer that would be useful to you and others, but mostly about English writing in a scientific context.
I see a problem with the question because it seems to be mostly about English as used in scientific writing (yes, of course in the specific context of chemistry). Others (specifically those who voted to close) may be of the opinion that you should have done more research before posting the question, or that there is no clear problem, as suggested by comments.
It is not uncommon to wonder what terminology is appropriate in various chemical contexts. This is why the
terminology tag exists. Such questions are common here and are often well received. However, here the question was muddled by being potentially more about English usage rather than chemical terminology. You will sometimes encounter "bad" English (in a grammatical sense) in scientific writing because the author is aiming for conciseness (a typical example is use of nouns as adjectives). In the case of your question, you might say "N-bound so-and-so" rather than "the so-and-so group connected to the N-atom". I am not sure whether IUPAC has a strong opinion here, or whether the use of a compact scientific writing style justifies the more compact terminology. I am therefore also unsure whether it would not be better instead addressed by an SE site such as Writing SE. But since the answer might not be obvious there is no harm with submitting the question at chem SE, it just happened to be a tad confusing.
Regarding policy: votes to close come (usually) from 5 different participants with the right to place such a vote (at least 3k rep). These votes might however be for different reasons (I for one cannot see the list of individual votes) and the reason shown in the end (and only to you and participants with sufficient rep) is an average of these.