Is the ii-I cadence considered bad practice since it doesn't have enough movement or resolution? Example - the chord progression (I-vi-IV-ii) (I-vi-IV-I)
There is no name for cadences other than V-I and IV-I and the opportunity has been there for 100+ years.
It's a much weaker cadence than V-I and IV-I: it lacks the leading tone of V and the common tone of IV. It also doesn't lend itself to good voice leading by traditional classical standards (in particular, it promotes parallel fifths).
For these reasons, it was not commonly used and, as a result, doesn't have any special label.
In general, ii serves the function of a pre-dominant chord, leading to V or possibly vii.
There is a named cadence that involves a ii chord (actually, ♭II). The Andalusian cadence, in terms of the Phrygian mode from which it originates, is iv-III-II-I. In terms of major, this would be iv-♭III-♭II-I.
The ♭II chord does have a special name — the Neapolitan chord — because of its distinctive sound.
There ARE other cadences which are named, for example I-V (imperfect), ii-V (imperfect) and V-vi (deceptive). However, cadences are generally meant to refer to harmonic motion which serves some kind of end to a musical phrase in a given key: either introducing a tension or resolving it. ii-I doesn't do that-- it's just a couple chords played in sequence.
